Noos

You are working with him to create a solution and should ask questions from a shared point of view. Your questions instead sound like you are doubting him.

"How can this make our checkout page better?" "What benefits do other companies get from using React?" "Is it feasible to change technology at this time?" "There might be implications if we switch, like..."

You are not understanding why they should consider it; you are subtly asking them to justify why they are bothering you.

I speak under correction here, but you won't have teams; you will just do it yourself. Like cad/cam software got rid of a LOT of machine drafters and the designers just became responsible for outputting the finished drawings. You'll be the entire team.

you remember the concept of dumping, i.e., flooding a market with below cost product to drive out competing businesses? This is dumping for creatives.

editing: not that it's intentional, but these things will have the same effect; way too much product even for creative works. No one will be able to make money off the product but the tools.

It's hilarious that the point of technology was to save us time from drudgery to pursue leisure or meaningful work, and the engineers are going all the way to make sure technology does even that for us. Who ever thought we had too many children's book authors or that we needed to be freed from the burden from writing them?

It's like a hydra that eats everything and keeps growing more heads.

The thing is, you may dislike the takes but they are in response to a real problem normies don't think about or would have any advice to give.

The solutions may be seen as bad or the takes as not good, but the problem still is very real, and for many people bad solutions are better than no solutions or the advice people give that doesn't work at all. Things like this should alert you to the fact something is wrong, not make you recoil from all the bad people.

there is inflation with everything since we are connected to everyone in the world. All programmers work at FAANG, all artists are superhumanly taleneted, all business owners make million dollar unicorns and look like actors, etc. Average is slowly being filtered out

Why do you even compare the two?

The death penalty is done to a tiny portion of criminals, is subject to very strict procedures and rules, has plenty of time to appeal, and is generally not "murder" by any description necessary. It can be misused of course, and there's plenty of arguments it is unnecessary, but we abort 800k alone per year in the USA and there's significant debate about the humanity of what the procedure is inflicted on. We have killed 1550 people this year for the death penalty.

They are two different things. You might as well say all prolife people should be anti-war and all prochoice people be pro-war for that rationale. I never see why people think this is a gotcha of hypocrisy.

But on the flip side, i can walk to a bubbling stream that's right in my back yard. I have never gotten mugged, never had to worry about shitty neighbors yelling loud enough to hear through the walls of my house, never needed to thread my way through panhandlers or beggars, never had shit stolen from me, and can see deer and wildlife sometimes even walk through the streets at night.

People seem to think a lack of privacy, quiet, and safety is this massive benefit.

people here are not talking small raises. Like what job can match a 30-50% raise in compensation? That's absurd. Do you think they can sustain that over time?

On the flip side, headphone jacks can wear out entirely. And one of the advances bluetooth has over normal jacks is that it's now possible for headphones to have mics on them capable of answering calls. Sort of similar to wireless charging, its possible to wear out ports from overuse.

Those movies were lying to make a point; they were trying to terrify people and succeeded, not trying to make them survive if it actually happened. It's rare that you would see a thoughtful film about surviving and rebuilding the world after it, because it is beyond the scope of film and doesn't have the hook that fear brings.

Don't take things too seriously. Remember all the movies about the internet in the 1990s.

Not sure why people are that hostile. I'm sure that identifying someone also can identify you if the circle around the person is small enough, and if said person is powerful enough, people choosing to believe them over him would end careers, yes. He'd have to say "well, i worked on this particular study with him, and the data was made up vs actually collected."

I think its more "how dare you hint scientists are corrupt!" that kind of drives the outrage.

the cheapskate consumer really doesn't have much power here, though. Not many people will develop primarily for xbox if all they can hope is to have gamepass level money. Thats why despite it, Xbox is still very much a 3rd in the console wars, and microsoft has to resort to buying popular IPs to have a chance.

The tesla isn't really common though; I've never even seen one, and my guess it's much more common in wealthy areas as a status symbol more than a widespread success.I don't even see electric vehicles as a whole where i live much, apart from the occasional prius or hybrid. I looked up the superchargers in my state, and they tend to be concentrated in the capital and the communities near new york state.

I think people kind of overemphasize the things the rich people do, and don't get how much a nonissue they are otherwise for everyone else. Like everyone talks about remote work constantly, but really only a minority of people can even hope to do it; many people got laid straight off during the pandemic instead.

Wouldn't people into these things be aware how fragile, clunky, or incomplete they are as solutions, and want to not always suggest them for every problem? Or be more critical than the average user, not less?

It feels like that people develop technology, and become totally surprised when 5-10 years down the road severe or significant issues happen that no one thought much about in the rush to get wealthy over it. You all on this site hate Facebook, but the potential for its abuses was always there and very few people seemed to think about it during a time when it might be possible to mitigate it.

Would you really want to risk this with finance? I think it's a fair question to be angry old men when you see what technology can do over long enough of a timeframe. Like even now people are sanguine about how the internet massively increased the attack vectors people could use on others to a national or world level, and empowered scams, malware, and more.

If you are serious about DeFi or other technologies, you HAVE to look beyond brrr money go up and le Fed bad. There's too much at stake.